G.R. No. 260415 , January 15, 2025
PUNONG BARANGAY DANTE PADAYAO, PETITIONER, VS. GOV. LUIS RAYMUND F. VILLAFUERTE, JR., ATTY. JANIS IAN REGASPI-CLEOFE, JOSE FRANCISCO L. MUSA, JR., LUIS ZULUETA, JOVIE VILLAREAL, DONDON OBIAS AND THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF CAMARINES SUR, AS WELL AS EVERY OTHER INDIVIDUAL AND/OR INDIVIDUALS, WHETHER CLAIMING, USING AND/OR EXERCISING RIGHTS UNDER THEM, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The subject of the case is Pitogo Island, Caramoan, Camarines Sur, consisting of Lot Nos. 6972 and 6973. Lot No. 6973 is covered by Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Bilang 35669 (KOT Blg. 35669) issued in the name of the Heirs of Mario Padayao, represented by petitioner Dante Padayao. On January 6, 2009, the Provincial Government of Camarines Sur, through Atty. Janis Ian Regaspi-Cleofe, informed residents, including Rowel Padayao, to vacate Pitogo Island, claiming it was a protected area and part of a danger zone. On January 20, 2009, armed men and respondents Luis Zulueta, Jovie Villareal, and Dondon Obias went to the island, reiterating the demand to vacate. On February 4, 2009, the Provincial Government, through respondent Jose Francisco L. Musa, Jr. and Villareal, together with armed men, demolished structures on the island, including that of Dante Padayao. Dante Padayao filed a Complaint for recovery of possession and damages with an application for a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary mandatory injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Dante testified that he and his predecessors-in-interest had possessed Pitogo Island since 1920, supported by a Certification of real property tax payments from 1945 to 2009 and a survey plan issued in favor of Julio Padayao on December 6, 1934. A DENR official testified that Pitogo Island is alienable and disposable based on a certified Land Classification Cadastral Map and that a Protected Area Management Board meeting confirmed it was not a DENR protected area. Respondents presented witnesses who claimed the demolition was due to the island being a danger zone and ecologically threatened, with reports recommending it be declared a protected area. The RTC granted a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and later ruled in favor of Dante Padayao, ordering respondents to vacate and restore Lot Nos. 6972 and 6973. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification, ruling that Dante Padayao had a better right of possession only over Lot No. 6973 covered by KOT Blg. 35669, but not over Lot No. 6972, as he failed to prove ownership thereof. Dante Padayao appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the RTC Decision by limiting the restoration of possession to only Lot No. 6973 and excluding Lot No. 6972.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that an action for recovery of possession (accion publiciana) requires the plaintiff to prove a better right of possession. For Lot No. 6973, Dante Padayao sufficiently proved his better right through KOT Blg. 35669, an original certificate of title issued under the Torrens system, which is conclusive evidence of ownership. The free patent granted is presumed valid and can only be assailed by the government in a reversion suit, which respondents did not institute. For Lot No. 6972, Dante Padayao failed to prove ownership. He relied on a survey plan from 1934 and tax declarations, which are not conclusive evidence of ownership. The survey plan merely identified the lot for a free patent application, and no patent or title was issued for Lot No. 6972. The Court also ruled that respondents failed to prove that Pitogo Island is part of a protected area under the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) Act. The burden of proof lies with the party alleging it, and respondents did not present the required official map and legal description from Congress. The reports presented by respondents were insufficient to establish that the island is inalienable. The Court modified the CA ruling regarding damages, deleting the award of temperate damages due to lack of factual basis, but affirmed the award of nominal damages and attorney’s fees for the violation of Dante Padayao’s possessory rights over Lot No. 6973.